Allowed

Lalit Kaushik v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024A482/18886/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order that rejected the production of defence evidence. The court directed the trial court to issue a summons for a defence witness to ensure a fair trial.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 15.5.2024 set aside and application disposed of with direction to trial court to issue summon to call defence witness Anuj Gupta.

Lalit Kaushik vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131248

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18886 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lalit Kaushik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Shri Shyam Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashwani Kumar Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 15.5.2024 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 2, Moradabad in Special Case No. 707 of 2023 (State Vs. Lalit Kaushik) arising out of case crime No. 311 of 2023, under Sections 342, 376, 506, I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District Moradabad, whereby an application to produce defence evidence has been rejected and closed the opportunity to produce defence evidence.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 13.4.2023 has been lodged by the mother of the victim under Sections 354, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. As per allegation of F.I.R., the incident took place in a office.

¶9

The applicant filed an application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. stating that on 30.1.2024, the trial court issued process to defence witness Anuj Gupta after allowing the application and again prayed for issuing summon to call defence witness Anuj Gupta, which has been rejected by the trial court after observing that the application has been filed for causing delay in trial and opportunity for defence witness has also been closed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail and due to this reason he is unable to do effective pairvi.

¶11

¶12

In Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2014) 1 SCC 628 , the Supreme Court considered the issue of fair trial observing in Para 10, which is as under:-

¶13

“10. This Court in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.154 of 2013) decided on 30.9.2013, after referring to its earlier judgments in Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2006 SC 1367; Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750; and Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, dealt with the issue of fair trial observing:

¶14

Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as a whole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty of the law’ and the courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings.

¶15

Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It necessarily requires a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but should be seem to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to get a fair trial is not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶16

¶17

xx xx xx xx

¶18

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore, fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity and is governed by rule of law. Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights.”

¶19

In view of the above facts and circumstances, keeping in mind the settled position of law and without going into the merits of the case, the order dated 15.5.2024 is set aside. The application is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to issue summon to call defence witness Anuj Gupta as defence evidence.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 T. Sinha

¶21

Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalit Kaushik v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kaushik v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Durgesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others